Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Blair's Ultimate Failure of Leadership

What does it say about Tony Blair that he knew Gordon Brown would be a disaster as Prime Minister, yet actively endorsed him and facilitated his election as Labour leader?

It's not exactly a sign of being a great leader, is it?

A real leader and statesman would have taken measures to ensure it could never happen. The fact that Blair didn't do that shows why he can never be regarded as a great Prime Minister.

If you think I am being a bit harsh, imagine if a company chief executive deliberately allowed a successor to taake over who he knew would bankrupt the company. It just wouldn't happen, would it? The chief executive would make sure the board of directors didn't make such a disastrous decision. He would speak out, wouldn't he/she?

Tony Blair's priority was then, and is now, Tony Blair. He could see the econmomic pigeons coming home to roost and needed out so he could escape before the sh*t hit the fan (to mix metaphors). Tony Blair was not a patriot and how the UK would fare under as unpleasant and inept a Prime Minister as Gordon Brown did not worry him. The possibility of staying on and reducing his earning potential probably worried him more.

The Thatcher/Major comparison just doesn't work at all. Thatcher didn't hand over to Major in a stitched up party deal. She didn't step down to allow him to become PM. And he produced the best economic climate the country had had for decades for Balir to inherit.

The issue here is that Blair has to take responsibility for allowing the country to get into the state it is in today as he clearly knew what Gordon would do and didn't nothing to stop it.

the thing is... Brown was a disaster as Chancellor as well - I can't understand why more isn't made of this: The man who sold off half the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the market and bought US T-bonds with the proceeds; 10% tax botch; the complete destruction of the pension plans... he was a one-man wrecking ball and should never have gone beyond being parish treasurer of Little Bottomly-in-the-Mould and he'd have made a mess even of that. He's a prime example of where bullying gets you - and should be a warning to everyone to steer very well clear of Ed Balls who was one of his hard-man fixers

He did not sack him brown because he did not want someone going more left and splitting the labour party = weakness.He blair, put the labour party before the needs of the country = weakness.in all blair was / is a total failure, now admits the fox hunting ban wrong, he has a lot more to admit was wrong.

There is another way in which the comparison with Margaret Thatcher endorsing John Major does not work. In 'The Downing Street Years' she makes it clear that her support for John Major was not only because she had regard for him but that he was the most likely to continue her work and policies: not something that Blair would ever be likely to believe of Brown.

And of course Margaret never ensured the boy John would win because she knew he would pale in comparison and kept out the boys Michael because she knew they would be very effective. Ho hum, humbug, hum.

To me, the really striking thing so far about the Blair book is the way he brushes aside pretty major policy contradictions. So he keeps banging on for example in his interview with Marr about the Keynsianism of Brown and how much he, Blair, was a modernist reformer of public services. No mention at all of the massive and hugely costly (to the taxpayer) fraud of PFI, which pushed all those modernising costs onto future taxpayers, effectively causing the current round of cuts. Not a word that in fact Blair and Brown were both gung-ho for this "solution" and that Blair approved of it wholeheartedly. If massive overspending in future years to fund some public spending projects now is a "sound modernisation" (as Blair put it this morning) then the Lord only knows what a bad one would be.

Even more pathetic (if it could get more pathetic) is Blair's reported low-mention rate of the role of Mandy, Alistair "Goebbels" Campbell and Lord Levy in the Big Tent. The book apparently makes it sound as if New Labour was all Tone's idea and it was all Tone's win. Anyone who knows the history of NL will be choking on their cornflakes this morning at that one. Blair had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Mandy and Alistair at some points and it was definitely Mandy who dreamed up some of the hallmarks of NL-ism.

Finally, I wonder if there will be an explanation of the massive bills charged to Labour for Cherie's hairdresser to be flown in? I am not holding my breath.

Your a petty tory, who still hasn't got over the fact that Blair lasted longer in power than Thatcher, and got out, when he wanted, under his own terms, rather than being dragged out kicking and screaming by his own party, as Thatcher did?

I am no defender of Tony Blair, Iain, but as an historian yourself I am surprised to hear you suggest that cocking-up the succession should fundamentally affect the way a Prime Minister is viewed by posterity. Other posters have already mentioned the Thatcher-Major example, but there are others. Presumably Winston Churchill could have ensured he was succeeded by Harold Macmillan rather than the disastrous Anthony Eden in 1955. The fact that he didn't do so has not prevented him being remembered as one of the greatest of British Prime Ministers.

Major is indeed a good comparison it just doesn't suit iains case so he dismisses it.

Majpr left Labour, Blair and Brown a golden economy and a growing economy. We had no disaster in Gulf War 1. The country was, literally, booming. The biggest problem was the seedy and dirty character and personal assassination carried out by Labour under Blair, Brown, Campbell and Mandelson.

It was they who have almost destroyed the UK and the reputation of the establishment.

As usual and every time, historically, Labour looks back at Tory years with green tinted, envious eyes and dismisses their own massive and criminally incompetent failings.